Orbit Post Sitemap
Before the CPI release, funds had already stated: in the past 24 hours, about $446 million was liquidated across the internet, 352 million yuan in long positions were liquidated, and only 94 million yuan in short positions, with nearly 80% of long positions exiting. Over 93,000 people exited passively, with the largest single ETHUSDT transaction on Bitget amounting to about $22.63 million. This was a concentrated risk clearance, not just pure panic. 🧭 Mechanism-wise, pressure came from two ends: the yield on the US 10-year Treasury rose to 4.94%, approaching 5%; Brent crude oil surpassed $100. US-Iran friction spilled over beyond the Strait of Hormuz, with tanker attacks raising supply concerns, which in turn pushed up inflation expectations. Combined with the PPI year-on-year 5.4%, the market priced in a 25 basis point rate hike on September 16 to 70%, with real interest rates rising, which is unfavorable for assets like BTC that do not generate cash flow. In terms of price, BTC is around $76,900, down 1.7% in 24 hours, weakening for the fourth consecutive day, with an intraday low of 76,410; ETH is around 2,445, relatively resilient to declines; SOL has fallen below 100, now around 99.3, down nearly 3% intraday; ZEC is around 1060, a 13% retracement. BTC supports at 76,400, resistance at 77,800. Tonight's 20:30 CPI is the watershed, with overall expectations of 3.4% year-on-year and core 2.4%. Data is hot, BTC may test 75,000 to 75,500; Data is mild, and only a break below 77,000 could prove to be a false breakout. SOL's current price is only about $3 from the strong moving average of 96.24; if it falls another 3%"Negative CPI Situation: Why Did Bitcoin Surge Sharply?" 》
$BTC $ETH In August, the US CPI rose 3.4% year-on-year, in line with expectations, and the core month-on-month rose 0.3%, slightly above expectations. After the data came out, the probability of a rate hike soared to about 90%, and US Treasury yields surged. Normally, Bitcoin should be under pressure, but it still broke above $79,000.
This isn't data improving, but rather a "boot down." Previously, the market had fully priced in rate hikes and tightening liquidity, leading to selling of Bitcoin and squeezing of short positions. When the worst-case scenario did not worsen further, uncertainty disappeared, short spots covered and wait-and-see funds entered, forming a "negative news exhausted" short squeeze.
Bitcoin is extremely sensitive to liquidity, and combined with structural buying from ETFs and other factors, the rebound is amplified. But be clear-headed: a bearish surge often provides short-term momentum and does not necessarily mean a trend reversal. If inflation remains stubborn, oil prices are high, and the Fed is more hawkish, rising real interest rates will still suppress risk assets. For Bitcoin, the key is whether ETF capital flows, dollar liquidity, and breakthroughs from previous highs are effective. Don't mistake short squeezes for bull markets; position and risk control always come first. #美国CPI环比加速, rate hike expectations are heating up Gas repricing is not simply a price increase, but a recalculation for ETH scaling
The Glamsterdam plan aims to raise and unify the cost of creating new state through EIP-8037, including new accounts, new storage slots, and deployed bytecode. Many people see the rise in some operation fees and think that Ethereum's scaling direction has regressed.
The issue is that state is not temporary work that disappears after a transaction completes. After new data is written, nodes need to store, access, and synchronize it long-term. If the protocol charges Gas fees that are long-term lower than the actual resource cost, the higher the Gas limit, the easier it is for state growth to get out of control.
The purpose of this adjustment is to make fees closer to the actual work nodes bear, creating conditions for further throughput improvement. Cheap ordinary computation can continue to be optimized, while operations occupying long-term public resources should bear more realistic costs.
For $ETH, scaling cannot just compare how much cheaper a single transaction is today, but must also consider whether ordinary nodes can still operate years later.
Lower short-term fees easily win applause, but sustainable long-term costs determine whether the network can continue to exist. Gas repricing may seem unpopular, but it could be the necessary accounting cleanup Ethereum must complete before continuing to scale.Yesterday's CPI was hawkish, but it staged a leveraged mutual kill
One hour after the data, short positions liquidated over 250 million; 4-hour liquidation about 470 million, shorts accounted for 350 million; the path is clear: first squeeze shorts, then shake out chasing longs
Why could it rally first despite hawkishness?
It's not that fundamentals improved; PPI, oil prices breaking 100, long-term US bonds high, the market had already priced in a September rate hike. The worst core CPI 0.4 didn't appear, and shorts near 76,000 were too crowded, so once data came out, they were quickly covered
1. Algorithmic trading first looks at core month-on-month, leading the sell-off in seconds
2. Traders read the details, narrative shifted from "inflation broadly rising" to "oil peaked, core not out of control"
Combined with "sell the expectation, buy the realization," leverage accumulation amplified the rebound, ETH violently rebounded 10% from the low, then plunged 150 points from 2667
But why did it sell off after the rally?
Because the short squeeze ended, pricing returned to interest rates. The probability of a rate hike didn't drop, still above 85%; 2-year yield jumped, long end high;
BTC spot ETF still has net outflows, no buyers at 79,000–80,000. Before next week's FOMC, smart money sells the rebound to chasing buyers.
What to watch next?
Next week's FOMC is the real pricing. A 25bp hike plus hawkish wording will retest 76,000; if unexpectedly unchanged, another short squeeze may occur
$BTC: key support 77,000–76,300, exit longs if below 76,300
$ETH: hold 2,500, still oscillating with a bullish bias, exit longs if below 2,435
#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 LAB current price is 0.0785300, the naked K shows several consecutive hourly candles consolidating with reduced volume around 0.0780, the lows have not continued to move down, selling pressure mainly comes from the unlocking positions near 0.0795 above, rather than new shorts. The order book shows passive support around 0.0775, but active buying has not yet dared to push, indicating both bulls and bears are waiting for a false breakdown or volume confirmation.
Just sent an order to the old neighborhood, my phone is heating up from the sun, and a glance still shows that half-dead look.
In terms of operation, do not chase the current price, enter long again if the pullback to 0.0775 does not break, entry range 0.0776 to 0.0781, stop loss at 0.0763, first take profit at 0.0811, second take profit at 0.0834. If it directly breaks down with volume below 0.0768, it means the support has withdrawn, long positions are invalidated, and reverse to look below 0.0745.
Position size should not exceed 20%, this kind of small coin has shallow depth, slippage will eat the stop loss. I don't talk about faith, just want to recover this wave.
$LAB
#伊朗允许BTC与USDT外贸结算
@OKX星球 - 2% is the number that keeps the market awake more than any candlestick. Have you noticed? What really weighs on the market is never the rise or fall, but the "not yet decided." My most direct impression from watching the market over the past week was that the market felt like it was slowly boiling with warm water. Nonfarm payroll data exceeded expectations, the labor market heated up again, and the market pushed the probability of the Fed remaining hawkish to 60.2%, so everyone was waiting for the same answer. It's not that they don't want to move, but they don't dare. Let's look at a few key signals: - Mainstream coins are trading sideways, leverage keeps shrinking, volatility is kept very low - Altcoins occasionally surface, but it's more like short-term funds finding an outlet, not a full return to risk appetite - ETH repeatedly loses momentum, then pushes back after a while, indicating big money hasn't truly stepped in - Good news doesn't rise, negative news doesn't drop deeply, bulls and bears are extremely restrained. Together, these phenomena point to the same thing: money is watching and waiting, not retreating or attacking. Altcoin activity is localized agitation, not a shift in sector strength; The silence of mainstream coins reflects the real attitude. Everyone is waiting for August CPI, which is the most important inflation card before the September rate meeting. Earlier PPI warnings, strong nonfarm payrolls, rising oil prices, and hawkish Fed remarks all piled together, pushing sentiment to a critical point. The logic behind the bullish trend is: once CPI falls short of expectations, the suppressed leverage and wait-and-see funds may quickly cover the gap, BTC and ETH move first, followed by the spread of counterfeit funds, with the rhythm of mainstream first, followed by catch-up gains. The risk of being bearish is: if inflation stickiness exceeds expectations, hawkish expectations will returnActive Buy-Sell Radar
Active buy-sell has already diverged, next we need to see if the price responds.
$SNDK net active direction is -278,300, price has not weakened yet, buyers account for 30.3%, currently can only confirm the sell side is ineffective.
$BTC buyers account for 67.3%, net active 3.55M, but price is only -0.01%, the buy-biased transactions have not been confirmed by price.
$MET market buy orders are more, buyers account for 62.2%, but price response is -0.04%, active funds have not yet resulted in displacement.#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温
Yesterday's CPI was clearly negative news, so why did Bitcoin first surge and then drop?
As soon as the CPI data came out yesterday, $ETH immediately jumped over 6 points to 2667, and $BTC touched 79896. I was also confused at the time, thinking the negative news had been fully priced in.
But what happened? After that initial spike, prices slowly slid back down. Now ETH is back to 2512, and BTC has fallen back to 77214. Both bulls and bears got shaken out.
First, let's talk about the data, which is essentially negative. Overall inflation at 3.4% looks in line with expectations, but core CPI rose 0.3% month-over-month, higher than the expected 0.2%. Gasoline contributed one-third of the increase. Once the data was released, the probability of a rate hike jumped directly from 70% to 90%.
So why the initial surge? Because the shorts were already waiting. In the past two weeks, the price dropped from 82000 to 76000, and many had piled into short positions. The data wasn’t as hawkish as feared, so shorts saw the "negative news realized" and rushed to cover. Covering shorts means buying back, which pushed prices up. ETH surged 6.5% in one hour purely due to short covering, not new buying.
Then why did prices fall again? After shorts covered, there was no one left to buy. The rate hike probability remains at 90%, oil prices are still above 100, and US Treasury yields are still rising. Once buying stopped, prices naturally fell back.
In short, yesterday’s spike was a short squeeze, not the start of a bull market. Don’t be fooled by that single green candle. After a surge, it continued to fall back, and ETH started to pull back! The path to breaking even at ten thousand yuan, short position entered at 2552 to catch this rebound.
Yesterday I got a bit carried away gambling, heavily invested to catch some rebound, luckily this time I was right.
During the early morning rush hour while taking orders, I stopped by the roadside to watch the market. ETH surged to a high of 2667 and then fell all the way down, current price 2512.
The strong resistance above remains at 2667; this rebound peak is hard to break through in one go; the first support below is 2485, and further down 2450 is an important watershed.
After a big rise, it has entered a correction phase. If it breaks below 2485, the correction will intensify, targeting 2450; if it holds the 2485 support, the market will maintain a high-level consolidation with the possibility of another attempt to break the previous high.
I entered a short position at 2552, preparing to catch the pullback after this rebound. Stop loss is set at 2670, strictly capping the upper limit, no adding positions to dilute cost.
With a capital of ten thousand, I only take opportunities with a favorable risk-reward ratio. Even if the market rebounds again, I will decisively exit at the stop loss level, not stubbornly holding the position.
This 2552 level is a pressure zone after the rebound, aiming to play a pullback. Breaking even is not about frequent trading every day, but waiting for the right pressure level, making one move and sticking to the plan.
Trading is not about participating whenever the market moves; during phases you don't understand, staying out of the market is also a strategy. Breaking even is a marathon, no need to rush.
When running trades and encountering long positions, don't rush to compete; trading also requires waiting for the pressure to be in place before acting, no impulsive orders.
This is just a personal live trading record and does not constitute investment advice.Brothers, putting together the recent CPI, rate hike expectations, US Treasury yields, oil prices, US stocks, and the actual performance of $BTC and $ETH, my personal conclusion is:
We still can't say the bear market is completely over, nor can we directly declare that the bull market has fully arrived. More accurately, the market is in a "post-bear market recovery and new trend confirmation phase."
There are indeed many bearish factors: CPI shows inflationary pressure still exists, and the market's expectation for a Fed rate hike in September has clearly intensified, which is always a pressure on risk assets.
But on the other hand, what’s most noteworthy this time is: despite such strong bearish expectations, the market has not collapsed continuously, and both BTC and ETH have shown clear support. This indicates that funds have not completely withdrawn.
So I think it looks more like:
❌ Not a confirmed major bull market yet
❌ Nor a traditional one-sided bear market
✅ More like a large-scale bottoming with a tug-of-war between bulls and bears and a trend selection.
What will truly decide the bull or bear market going forward is still Fed policy. If the market can withstand after the rate hike is implemented, even showing a "bearish realization rally," that would be very positive for the medium-term trend; but if rate hike expectations continue to rise and US Treasury yields keep climbing, the market still faces the risk of another pullback.
My honest view: don’t rush to call the bull market now, but also don’t keep viewing the market with a bear market mindset. The upcoming period may be the real key phase that determines the next major trend.
#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 #BTC现货ETF连续流出 Poor liquidity, yet the price rises sharply
For this $BTC rebound, many people's first reaction is that a bull market has arrived.
Let's look at one number: there is little on-exchange capital, poor liquidity.
The counterintuitive truth is:
A bull market is not created by a sudden rise, but by endurance.
Endurance takes time, usually requiring a sideways market for a year.
Where does the money come from:
Large funds don't enter the market all at once.
They build positions by repeatedly buying during the sideways phase.
Right now, this story doesn't exist.
With the election and Trump in office, there are too many variables.
Time, capital, and story—all three are lacking.
A sharp rise only means fewer sellers.
It does not mean more buyers.
#BTC现货ETF连续流出
#伊朗允许BTC与USDT外贸结算 #加密财库分化：买币还是回购？ $BTC $ETH Latest news from the Ethereum Foundation
Ethereum Foundation (EF) core updates as of September 2026
1. Core upgrade progress (latest September update)
Glamsterdam hard fork
Has entered the public testnet Platåberget phase, official launch postponed to Q4 2026, will gradually connect to Sepolia and Hoodi long-term testnets; core includes proposer-builder separation (PBS) optimization to enhance censorship resistance.
Hegotá upgrade (targeted for 2027)
EF protocol team released a layered priority list of 62 candidate EIPs on September 7, publishing team ratings for the first time; EIP-7805 (FOCIL) and EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions) are designated as core mandatory proposals:
EIP-7805: Decentralize builders, strengthen transaction censorship resistance;
EIP-8141: Support stablecoin payment for Gas fees, native account abstraction, post-quantum authentication adaptation;
The overall upgrade scope is narrowing, focusing on security and core feature implementation.
Ethereum officially removes the “shard chain” roadmap, with layer 2 networks now carrying 94% of all network transactions, scaling fully reliant on Rollup solutions.The endpoint of zkEVM is not faster proofs, but a change in the verification method
The Ethereum Foundation lists zkEVM as one of the five long-term protocol research tracks. The goal is to gradually transform execution proofs from an optional tool into an important part of network verification, ultimately allowing validators to check succinct proofs instead of re-executing all computations in a block.
If this path succeeds, it could significantly change the structure of node verification work and provide new space for scaling and formal verification.
But "having proofs" does not mean "no cost." Proof generation requires computational resources, and the system must handle hardware differences, proof delays, implementation bugs, and cryptographic assumptions. If the proof market becomes overly concentrated, new dependencies will also arise.
For $ETH, the real value of zkEVM is not just an additional zero-knowledge label, but enabling more computations to be processed while maintaining verifiability.
The Foundation is still discussing the order of different milestones, which shows the roadmap is not fully finalized. Being optimistic does not require pretending all technical choices are settled.
I am willing to look forward to zkEVM and will continue to watch proof costs, generation speed, and implementation diversity. Ultimately, it should reduce the verification burden, not replace old bottlenecks with a harder-to-see new one.Long and Short Crowding List
High fees are not a conclusion, low fees are not an opportunity; what really matters is position returns.
$IOST current fee rate -0.4357%, settled -1.752% in the past 24 hours, at the 3rd percentile of recent samples. The rise is not accompanied by position liquidation; new positions have participated, but continuation depends on subsequent price response. Extreme negative fees combined with increased positions during a rise indicate shorts are under price pressure, but it cannot yet be directly called a short squeeze.
$RAY current fee rate -0.0789%, settled -0.496% in the past 24 hours, at the 6th percentile of recent samples. Price falls while positions increase, leverage risk exposure is rising during this downtrend. Short costs are relatively high but price still cooperates; the structure is not yet broken, and a halt in the decline would be the first warning.
$SOL current fee rate +0.0056%, settled +0.007% in the past 24 hours, at the 65th percentile of recent samples. Open interest rises along with price increases; this is not a simple deleveraging phase, position ownership still requires transaction verification. Fees have not reached historical extremes for the same coin; reading the current position structure by price, no additional crowding label is applied.I'm currently looking at $OKB, and the core comes down to two words: scarcity + usage. OKX directly burned 65.25 million OKB last year in one go, and now the total supply is fixed at 21 million, with the contract having removed the ability to continue minting. More importantly, OKB is no longer just an exchange platform token; it is the only native Gas asset of X Layer. X Layer clearly plans to develop in directions like DeFi, payments, and RWA. I really like this logic. Because if trading, RWA, and payments on X Layer truly scale in the future, the demand for OKB won't be propped up by "storytelling" but will be directly driven by on-chain usage. The fixed supply of 21 million means supply is locked; as X Layer grows, demand will gradually increase. This is what I mainly focus on when looking at OKB. ZEC is a completely different matter. When I look at ZEC, the core is whether it can continue to deepen its moat in the "privacy coin" sector. Currently, Zcash has completed NU6.2, and the upcoming NU6.3 candidate upgrades include Ironwood, quantum recoverability, Orchard migration, and so on; meanwhile, Tachyon is working on the next-generation shielded protocol aimed at solving privacy transaction scaling and post-quantum privacy issues. Also, there is a data point I care about. As of May this year Glamsterdam is still scheduled for Q4, but the "date not confirmed" is the key point
The market sees Glamsterdam expected to launch in Q4, and it's easy to automatically translate that into a certainty catalyst. However, the official page also states that the date is not yet confirmed, which is often overlooked.
Protocol upgrades are not naturally completed just because a certain day is marked on the calendar. Specifications need to be frozen, clients need to be implemented, devnets and public testnets need to be verified, and wallets, RPCs, and applications also need to adapt. If any layer is not ready, the mainnet launch time should not be forced just for market sentiment.
For $ETH, delays may of course hit short-term expectations, but the cost of a cautious delay is far less than the risk of consensus or large-scale compatibility incidents after mainnet launch.
Therefore, Glamsterdam can support a mid-to-long-term narrative but should not be packaged as a guaranteed profit event trade. If testing goes smoothly, expectations will gradually be realized; if key issues cannot be resolved, valuations must be readjusted.
True Ethereum guardians do not announce official dates, nor do they turn "expected" into "confirmed." Respecting uncertainty is actually respecting the engineering complexity of Ethereum.Bitcoin followed a counterintuitive script after the CPI release, first dipping to around 76,000, then rallying all the way up, reaching a high of 79,890, close to the 79,000 mark, and actually closing up over 24 hours.
Why did this happen? Core CPI exceeding expectations is a hawkish signal, raising the probability of a rate hike to 90%, which should have pressured risk assets. But the dip hit a key previous support level, and the bears couldn't hold the price down. Short positions above had to be covered, forcing the rebound.
My judgment is that this looks more like a technical correction after the bad news was fully priced in, rather than a reversal in direction. The 78,000 to 80,000 range is the first resistance zone; if it can't hold above that, it's just short covering. Only by firmly reclaiming above 80,000 can we say the bad news is fully absorbed. On the downside, 76,000 is the bulls' lifeline; if lost, the outlook needs to be reconsidered.
Before the Fed decision next week, volatility is likely to remain high. Do you think Bitcoin can reclaim 80,000? $BTC $ETH $ZEC
#BitcoinCPIReboundAbove79000USDHackers hacked the official community for phishing, $PENDLE dropped from 2.014 to 1.992: no respect given
Ridiculous, an hour ago the official Pendle Discord was hacked, fake links phishing wallets—$PENDLE only dropped from 2.014 to 1.992 (-1.09%). Direction: buy low above 1.9405, cut losses if broken.
The incident is real—the channel was invaded to send fake links, community members warned everyone not to click or connect wallets, no fix announcement or loss report yet. The treasury and liquidity pools were untouched, not a contract vulnerability.
The market also voted with its feet—30 minutes after the incident 2.019→1.995 (-1.19%), no second sharp drop. Daily bullish trend for 19 days, ADX 60.6 strong trend, 30-day gain 49.44%, funding rate 0.0001 with no rush to exit.
Resistance above: 2.032 (15m SAR) → 2.1357 (1h SAR)
Support below: 1.9405 (4h SAR)
Watershed: 1.9405. Break below turns bearish.
Conclusion: The market is diverging at a high level with pullback (34 up, 36 down, account ratio squeezed at 2.34), single coin negative news tends to be amplified—BTC at 77166 only moved 0.398%, buy low at 1.9405, exit if broken, take half profit on rebound at 2.032. FOMC plus CPI on September 15, avoid heavy positions.
Stay alert and don’t get lost.
$PENDLE $BTCOnce the CPI data was released, the market's bet on a September rate hike jumped directly from 70% to 90%, and the crypto side also shook a few times.
$BTC fell below 77000, $ETH hovered around 2500. The liquidation data is quite interesting: ETH shorts account for 70%, the longs have been mostly washed out, but the shorts have crowded in a lot. Here's a question—if the shorts are so crowded, what if there's a rebound over the weekend? Would short covering actually amplify the rally? But if it rebounds, can it be chased, or is it just setting a trap for next week?
Liquidity is usually thin on Sundays, so a spike or sudden jump is normal, but don't think the bearish sentiment disappears just because it rises. Keep an eye on 76000 and 2500 first; if those hold, it will consolidate and digest, but if not, it might drop early for next week. The question is, at this point, has most of the rate hike risk already been priced in? If yes, how much downside space is left?
That said, with rate hikes priced in at 90%, if the Fed doesn't follow the script next week, or hikes but speaks more dovishly, the heavily suppressed assets might bounce sharply. On the other hand, if they do hike and take a hard stance, might the market actually breathe a sigh of relief—finally it's settled?
#BTC现货ETF连续流出 #美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 The latest CPI reaction is telling a different story than the headline macro narrative. 1️⃣ CPI Was Hot — But Crypto Refused to Break Down 🇺🇸 August CPI came in at +0.4% MoM and +3.4% YoY, while Core CPI rose 0.3% MoM and 2.4% YoY. BTC initially dipped toward $76.5K, but quickly recovered back toward the $77K–$78K area. ETH also reclaimed the $2.5K zone. That reaction matters. If macro pressure was truly overwhelming, we would expect risk assets to sell off aggressively. Instead, capital is stLast night CPI was released, first killing longs then squeezing shorts
August CPI: overall +0.4% / year-on-year 3.4%, in line with expectations; core month-on-month +0.3%, slightly hot.
Gasoline and energy are the main reasons, the probability of a 25bp rate hike at the September FOMC has been pushed to 85%–90%.
In the past approximately 24 hours, the whole network liquidations totaled $680 million–$740 million, with more shorts liquidated. $BTC about $182 million, $ETH about $262 million, $SOL about $17 million, $ZEC about $33 million (relatively large compared to their market size).
$BTC 77194 (-0.69%): holding 76k–77k first, waiting for next week's rate decision
$ETH 2512 (-1.82%): more volatile, shorts squeezed during the rebound
$SOL 102.13 (+0.52%): relatively resilient, still above 100
$ZEC 1158 (-0.49%): leveraged pullback after a big rise, independent trend but most prone to a second drop
Next week's key event is the 9/15–16 FOMC. Only a 25bp hike with non-hawkish wording is easy to digest; if energy spillover is emphasized and further hikes are expected, another hike after that is normal.
Data compiled, not investment advice. $BTC $ETH $SOL $ZEC Good morning, there are two things to watch this weekend
One is the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters reported that the Gulf countries and the Iranian foreign minister plan to discuss temporary shipping arrangements in Oman on September 14. If it can really ease the ship congestion, it would be good for oil prices and risk assets, but for now it's just preparation for talks, no agreement yet
The other is the new draft of the CLARITY Act, a supposedly decentralized but actually controlled trading protocol, which may also be brought under CFTC regulation. On the 15th, there will be a procedural vote; it needs 60 votes to advance the review, it won't become law that day
BTC was around 77200 this morning, recent hourly rebound highs have been declining, so I'm still bearish in the short term. Waiting for a rebound to 77500–77700 in the morning, if the 15-minute candle closes below 77500, consider shorting at 77400–77500, stop loss at 77900, targets at 76800 and 76100, unit U.
Cancel if the hourly candle closes above 77900 before entry, plan valid until 12 noon today. Pay special attention to negotiation news over the weekend; if there is substantial progress, this bearish view will need to be reconsidered
#CLARITY替代修正案公布，贝森特呼吁参院推进 #霍尔木兹风险升温，能源通胀受关注 This time, Green Hair really cleared all his positions, just right after the CPI data was released. Is this really the last dance?
There is one good news and one bad news:
The good news is he made 3 on 4 long positions.
The bad news is the 3 made together only $1000, while he lost $2000 on one.
Two $BTC long positions at 100x leverage, average entry price 77393, average exit price 76249, directly lost $2387, a return rate of -154.26%. He held this position for almost a whole day, probably stubbornly waiting for the data release, and finally cut losses to exit. No wonder he immediately switched to short positions; this loss probably pushed him to the edge.
Looking at $ETH:
The last trade was 5 Ethereum short positions at 100x leverage, average entry price 2631, average exit price 2613, earning $83. The position size was not large, mainly riding the volatility after the data, taking profits when possible, and now he has made a few hundred dollars more.
Then there's $ZEC, Green Hair's favorite.
This time it was actually the biggest position: 14.78 $ZEC long positions at 50x leverage, average entry price 1080, finally closed at 1143, directly earning $929.61, a return rate of 291.06%. This trade somewhat recovered the losses from previous trades.
Now, all positions are cleared, only a short position worth over $3000 remains.
Moreover, this data is indeed not good: August inflation year-over-year at 3.4%, core inflation month-over-month at 0.3%, and market expectations for Fed rate hikes have clearly intensified.
So, is this really the last dance this time? Account Position Divergence Radar
The number of long and short positions is one layer, and the weight of top positions is another layer; the real misalignment is often hidden between these two layers.
$BEAT accounts lean long, while top holdings lean short; the side with more people is temporarily not the side with heavier top positions. Price rises and positions shrink, so this phase should be understood as a reduction rebound. To resolve the divergence, top holdings need to rise rather than just relying on an increase in account numbers.
$DOGE as a whole and top accounts are biased toward the long side, but the scale of top holdings remains on the short side, which is a clear account/position divergence. The rise is not accompanied by position withdrawals; new holdings have participated, but continuation depends on subsequent price response. Don’t count accounts anymore later; directly monitor whether the weight of top positions is repairing toward the long side.
$SUI account and position signals have not aligned; directional judgment requires waiting for equivalent position data to confirm. Price and positions rise synchronously, confirming that risk exposure expands with the rise. The ratios each move independently; short-term is more suitable for waiting for resonance rather than chasing direction based on a single ratio.Computing power cannot protect upper-layer code; CORE has taught the bull market a lesson ⚠️
⚠️This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice
The most deeply resonant marketing narrative in this BTCFi sector bull market is building secure public chain infrastructure relying on Bitcoin's powerful computing power. $CORE, as a star in this sector, uses the Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus, binds BTC computing power, and pairs it with a hard cap of 2.1 billion total supply, leading countless retail investors to form a fixed perception: as long as the underlying computing power is strong enough, the chain is secure. But the August 31 reward vulnerability incident shattered this huge misconception: computing power only protects the underlying hash layer, not the upper-layer business code.
The root cause of the incident was a code defect in the reward distribution module, where a few malicious validator nodes exploited the vulnerability to repeatedly claim block rewards. In just three days, 255 million CORE tokens, originally planned to be released slowly over decades, were mined prematurely. The project team repeatedly emphasized that the 2.1 billion total supply cap was not breached and no tokens were minted out of thin air. However, the total supply cap is only a long-term ceiling; the token release pace was completely out of control, representing a typical case of overspending issuance. The tokenomics planned in the whitepaper became invalid simply due to a bug in a piece of upper-layer code.
After the crisis broke out, the project urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, which did not roll back historical transactions, so ordinary users’ holdings were not wiped out. 186 million abnormal tokens were destroyed on-chain, and the ledger numbers returned to 2.1 billion. But the hard fork could not fix a fatal legacy problem: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred out of the reward pool to external wallets before the fork upgrade and cannot be recovered. These are the so-called ghost tokens in the market, hanging over the circulating supply long-term, posing constant selling pressure risk.
Many retail investors cannot distinguish between two layers of security boundaries: Bitcoin’s computing power defends against 51% attacks and ensures the underlying ledger hash is not tampered with. But token reward distribution, node verification rules, and staking logic all belong to upper-layer application code. No matter how strong the underlying computing power is, if there are bugs in the upper-layer business code, the reward distribution mechanism will go out of control. Computing power security ≠ protocol code security; this is the core recognition upgrade the CORE incident brings to all investors.
Since the vulnerability occurred, the community has continuously demanded answers about the vulnerability’s duration, the list of involved validator nodes, and the complete on-chain flow path of the 69 million ghost tokens. The project team has only issued brief announcements and has yet to release a full technical postmortem report. The information opacity in the face of a major security incident forms an information black box, which is a key reason institutional funds remain cautious and hesitate to enter aggressively.
Looking back at CORE’s roadmap, it plans LST liquid staking, SatPay payments, and asset management protocols, aiming to create real business revenue through ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens, building a positive value flywheel. But reality is harsh: current ecosystem fees are very small and insufficient to offset selling pressure from token releases; price increases rely more on staking incentives than business profits. After the vulnerability incident, multiple exchanges immediately suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals; although trading resumed later, on-chain staking earning functions were delisted and risk ratings were raised, which is the market’s most direct risk warning.
Objectively, CORE’s code is open source, and the on-chain ledger is verifiable; it does not have multi-level referral rebates like traditional Ponzi schemes, fundamentally different from them. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no huge investment risk. Upper-layer code vulnerabilities, overspent issuance leaving ghost tokens, and insufficient disclosure of major incident information are all risks holders must face.
Other sector tokens like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-level security incidents; their audits and governance disclosures are more transparent, and incremental bull market funds clearly tilt toward such tokens. A hard fork can only fix ledger numbers; the trust investors lost is hard to rebuild quickly with a single technical upgrade.
This incident sounds a warning bell for all investors laying out public chains and betting on the BTCFi sector. Evaluating projects cannot rely solely on computing power endorsement and scarcity narratives. Code security, token release pace, and project information transparency are the three hard-core standards for evaluating public chains. Computing power can protect the underlying network but cannot cover upper-layer code. No matter how many bull market opportunities there are, risk control always comes first.Several main market trends have now connected.
The US August CPI year-on-year is 3.4%, core CPI 2.4%. The 10Y US Treasury yield once approached 5%, Brent crude remains above $100. The core logic is clear: inflation hasn't fully come down, so the Fed still needs to lean hawkish.
The crypto space is also starting to diverge.
BTC ETFs have seen net outflows for two consecutive days, totaling about $403 million; ETH ETFs have turned negative, and SOL ETF inflows have also noticeably slowed.
Altcoins are even more direct. After a high-level pullback, a whale had 2,859.7 ZEC long positions rapidly liquidated, about $3.25 million in size. High leverage is being washed out first.
Two other points are worth watching:
On September 15, the CLARITY Act faces a key vote.
Tether continues to expand into traditional finance and private credit.
So I’m not only watching BTC now.
Oil prices → inflation → US Treasury yields → Fed expectations → ETF funds → crypto risk appetite.
If the 10Y yield breaks above 5%, and ETFs continue to see outflows, $BTC, $ETH, and SOL will all face short-term pressure.
If US Treasuries reverse and ETFs turn positive, the market can also quickly recover.
It’s not that there are no opportunities now, but volatility will be very high. The storm won't be late; it will just fall early. $ZEC This wave is far from the curtain call.
Today, ZEC retraced from 1,294 to 1,085, down 7% in 24 hours, with calls for a top rising again. But looking at the market, this looks more like a turnover after a sharp rise, not a trend reversal.
Let's look at the bears first. Top Binance traders account for 72.05% of their accounts, with a long-short ratio of 0.39, so bears are still clustered. Garrett Jin opened about 39,760 ZEC short positions near 576, with a current price of 1,085 and an unrealized loss of over $20 million, liquidating above 2,540, but he did not withdraw. All the above are closed positions waiting to be triggered.
Now let's look at ETFs. Grayscale ZCSH has been online for two weeks, with assets exceeding $500 million, holding over 550,000 ZEC, accounting for about 3% of circulating circulation. DCG subscriptions have about 100 million, with over 70 million in independent inflows. Institutional channels have just opened, with large funds still coming up.
Technically, the MACD line at 138.95 is above the signal line at 112, the histogram at +26.94, indicating the bullish structure remains unbroken. If it stabilizes between 1,023-1,085, it may just be a correction in the fourth wave, with the next wave expanding upward.
ZEC rose from 407 to 1,294, relying on ETFs, short squeezes, and tightening supply. Right now, ETFs are accumulating shares, bears are holding firm, and technical moves are not yet complete. At this level, I am bullish; a pullback is an opportunity.
A storm is coming, and this time it's real.
$BTC
$ETH
#财报观察员: Oracle AI Cloud Revenue Up 121% If a stock gets forcibly pulled up by four or five points on bad news, then it's probably not fundamentals but who admits defeat first. Have you recently felt that the more something should fall, the more it rises? I've been watching the SPCX for a few days, feeling a bit uneasy. The PPI is higher than expected, and normally risk appetite should shrink, but it just goes against the flow. The previous decline didn't end, and now it's rallying is unreasonable. With such a large market cap, there aren't many decent bears on the market, as if most of the shorters have been cleared out recently. Now the bears stand alone in the wind, unable to find allies. This is actually more worth watching than the rise and fall itself. What is the market trading? It's trading position pain, not macro narrative. Interest rates and liquidations should suppress valuations, but once the chip structure is cleared, prices can temporarily detach from gravity. For BTC and ETH, this signal is mixed: on one hand, it shows risk appetite hasn't died out, and hot money is still willing to ignite the most painful spots; On the other hand, it also means funds are shrinking to a very few targets, and fake and most sectors may not get a share. If ETH can't keep up, it means the divergence hasn't arrived—it's just a local squeeze. The bullish path is for short covering to push prices higher, sentiment spilling over to high-beta assets, BTC holding high levels, and ETH and some altcoins catching up. The potential risk is that this rally lacks spot incremental support, and once the reversal ends, the reverse volatility will be even fiercer. What's even more important is that if even a large-cap SPCX can be played like this, it means market depth and risk control are thinning. Next time,The next stop for Glamsterdam is October 6th, so stop trading ETH based on the old date
Currently, ethereum.org shows that Glamsterdam is still in the development network testing phase, expected to enter the mainnet in Q4 2026, but the exact date has not been confirmed; the next public milestone is the Sepolia fork on October 6th.
A change in date does not mean the upgrade has failed. Ethereum needs to coordinate multiple execution and consensus layer clients, as well as verify block construction, Gas repricing, and tool compatibility. Any critical issue could affect the testnet schedule.
For $ETH holders, the easiest mistake is to keep treating the old calendar as valid information and prematurely betting based on the wrong date. The Sepolia fork is not the mainnet launch; it is just a public test closer to a real environment.
What really matters is not how many days are left on the countdown, but whether client splits, transaction failures, node performance anomalies, and development tool incompatibilities occur after testing.
Upgrade dates can be adjusted, but engineering evidence cannot be skipped. The long-term value of ETH comes from the protocol’s ability to evolve safely, not from every roadmap date remaining unchanged.Hard fork fixed the numbers, but trust cannot be repaired: The long-term impact of the CORE incident on the BTCFi sector
⚠️This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice.
BTCFi is the most anticipated sector in this bull market, with everyone looking forward to transforming Bitcoin, a trillion-dollar asset, from a pure store of value into an income-generating asset. $CORE was once the benchmark of this sector, attracting substantial capital to bet on the future of the Bitcoin ecosystem with its Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus, Bitcoin hash power support, and a narrative capped at 2.1 billion total supply. However, the August 31 discovery of a validator reward vulnerability sounded the alarm for the entire BTCFi sector: a technical hard fork can correct ledger numbers, but the shattered trust of investors is difficult to restore with a single fix.
The root cause of this incident was a code defect in the reward distribution module, where a few malicious validators repeatedly claimed block rewards, mining 255 million CORE tokens prematurely within just a few days. These tokens were originally planned to be released slowly over several decades. The project team repeatedly emphasized that the 2.1 billion total supply was not exceeded and no tokens were minted out of thin air. However, the token release schedule was completely out of control, amounting to an overdraft issuance, rendering the tokenomics described in the whitepaper meaningless in the face of the code bug.
When the crisis broke out, the project urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork without rolling back historical transactions, so ordinary users’ holdings would not be wiped out. 186 million abnormal tokens were destroyed on-chain, bringing the total supply back to 2.1 billion. However, the hard fork had an irreparable shortcoming: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred out of the reward pool to external wallets before the fork execution and could not be recovered. These ghost tokens remain hovering above the market, posing a constant risk of selling pressure.
The impact of this event has long surpassed CORE itself and changed the valuation logic of the entire BTCFi sector.
First, the market began to distinguish: Bitcoin’s own security ≠ BTCFi derivative protocol security. In the past, many projects’ marketing rhetoric equated Bitcoin’s hash power with the security of the entire derivative chain. The CORE incident revealed the truth: Bitcoin only guarantees the security of its own underlying hash; all sidechains, L2s, and staking protocols built on Bitcoin are independent application layers. Once upper-layer code has vulnerabilities, even if bound to BTC hash power, token release mechanisms can still spiral out of control. Future capital allocation in BTCFi will prioritize protocol code audits and reward module security over hash power narratives.
Second, tokenomics is no longer judged solely by total supply cap; release schedule has become a core evaluation metric. Previously, many BTCFi projects only promoted scarcity of total supply while downplaying unlocking, node rewards, and foundation release rules. After the CORE incident, retail and institutional investors will actively dissect token release curves, focusing on whether there are premature releases or hidden unlocking vulnerabilities. Projects relying solely on “total supply scarcity” storytelling will see a significant decline in fundraising and capital attraction.
Third, information transparency during major crises has become a survival threshold for BTCFi projects. Since the vulnerability was discovered, the project has not fully disclosed the vulnerability’s latent period, the list of involved nodes, or the complete flow path of the 69 million ghost tokens. Avoiding key information in major security incidents will raise caution among investors toward the entire sector. Future high-quality BTCFi projects must ensure public audits, timely and comprehensive vulnerability reviews, and on-chain traceability of abnormal assets.
Capital preferences in the sector have also shifted accordingly. Projects like STX and MERL in the same sector, which have not experienced major consensus-layer vulnerabilities and have more transparent governance disclosures, are more attractive to incremental capital. After the CORE incident, capital will actively avoid BTCFi new projects with grand narratives but weak audits and opaque information.
Objectively, CORE’s code is open source and the on-chain ledger is verifiable, with no multi-level referral rebates, fundamentally different from traditional Ponzi schemes. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no significant risk. Overdraft issuance, leftover ghost tokens, and insufficient information disclosure are all real hidden dangers. Exchanges delisting on-chain earning products and raising risk ratings after the vulnerability are the market’s most direct responses.
A hard fork can only fix ledger numbers, not market trust. The BTCFi sector still holds huge potential; the programmability of Bitcoin assets remains one of the main themes of the bull market. But the sector has left behind the stage of blindly telling stories; investors will become more discerning.
CORE leaves a lesson for the entire BTCFi sector: the value of the Bitcoin ecosystem lies not in simply leveraging BTC hash power narratives, but in solid code audits, rigorous token release rules, and transparent project governance. Paper numbers can be modified through forks, but once trust collapses, rebuilding it takes a long time.Woke up and saw that $BTC played me again.
Last night, CPI was higher than expected. I opened a short at 76928, thinking that since the data was hawkish, BTC dropping a bit first shouldn't be a big problem. But instead, the price dropped to a low of 75866, then directly surged to 79888, and my short position almost started to struggle again.
Luckily I stopped the loss this time, otherwise I'd probably be studying "why I didn't exit earlier" again 😂
What's even more interesting is that after surging to 79888, it didn't hold, and now it's slowly falling back to around 77000, basically returning to my opening range.
This makes me increasingly feel that trading BTC can't just rely on news to judge direction.
News tells the logic, but price tells what the market truly chooses.
Last night CPI was hawkish, yet BTC first surged sharply, indicating short-term funds had no intention of following the script obediently. Now the price is back near 77000, so I'll just wait and see.
If it holds, it might still be a consolidation; if it really breaks below 76000, then the bears' space will truly open up.
The biggest takeaway this time isn't whether I made money or not, but that I finally started to learn: cut losses when wrong, don't argue with the market.
Being played once isn't scary; what's really losing is stubbornly holding on even when you know you're wrong. $ZEC locked in with loss A mature trader should be like thisCode Security, Release Schedule, Information Transparency: New Standards for Public Chain Selection After the CORE Incident
⚠️ This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice.
The BTCFi sector is booming in this bull market. In the past, many retail investors chose public chains by only focusing on the total supply cap and grand narratives in the whitepaper, rarely delving into the underlying details. However, the CORE 8.31 validator node reward vulnerability incident completely rewrote the evaluation logic for public chains. After this crisis, the market summarized three hard-core standards that must be prioritized for verification: code security, release schedule, and information transparency. These three points are far more important than total supply caps or hash power endorsements.
First, code security is the bottom line for a public chain's survival. Many people are misled by the "BTC hash power endorsement" propaganda, mistakenly believing that a strong underlying hash power makes the entire public chain invulnerable. But hash power protects the hashing layer; token reward distribution and node verification belong to the upper-layer business code. The root cause of the CORE incident was a code vulnerability in the reward calculation module, where a few malicious validator nodes repeatedly claimed block rewards, prematurely mining a large number of tokens. No matter how strong the underlying hash power is, if the upper-layer code has defects, the token economic rules will fail.
When screening projects, one should not only look at consensus propaganda but focus on multiple independent audit reports, records of audit vulnerability fixes, and vulnerability response mechanisms. Audits are not a one-time fix; core modules must be continuously retested.
Second, the token release schedule determines the long-term selling pressure on the market. The CORE whitepaper states a total supply cap of 2.1 billion tokens, with token rewards planned to be slowly released over 81 years. But during the vulnerability outbreak, rewards for the next several decades were prematurely overdrawn and released. Although the total supply cap was not exceeded, the circulation supply schedule was completely disrupted, constituting a typical overdraft issuance. The project team urgently executed a v1.0.26 hard fork, destroying 186 million abnormal tokens, but 69 million ghost tokens had already been transferred out of the reward pool before the fork and cannot be recovered, lingering above the market and posing constant selling pressure.
When evaluating tokens, do not only look at the maximum total supply; carefully analyze the initial release ratio, node reward release curve, foundation/team lock-up, and unlock schedule. The total supply ceiling is just a number; the release schedule is the key determinant of supply and demand.
Third, information transparency is the touchstone of project governance. Since the vulnerability occurred, the community has repeatedly inquired about the vulnerability's latent duration, the list of involved validator nodes, and the complete on-chain flow path of the 69 million ghost tokens. The project team only issued brief announcements and has yet to release a complete technical review report. Avoiding core issues after a major security incident is a huge risk signal.
High-quality projects disclose the cause of vulnerabilities, damaged data, remediation plans, and subsequent protective measures in full when facing crises. If a project team is vague and evasive in the face of major incidents, no matter how glamorous the narrative, caution is warranted.
Looking back at CORE's roadmap, plans like LST liquid staking and SatPay payments depict a promising ecosystem vision, aiming to generate real business revenue through ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens. But in reality, ecosystem fees are minimal, and market price increases rely more on staking incentives rather than real business profits. After the vulnerability incident, multiple exchanges urgently suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals. Although trading later resumed, on-chain earning products were delisted and risk ratings were raised, reflecting the market's most genuine risk feedback.
Objectively, CORE's code is open source, and the on-chain ledger is verifiable. It does not involve multi-level referral rebates and is fundamentally different from traditional Ponzi schemes. But "not a Ponzi scheme" does not mean there is no significant investment risk. Code vulnerability risks, ghost tokens from overdraft issuance, and insufficient information disclosure are all risks holders cannot ignore. Projects in the same sector like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-layer security incidents, have more transparent audits and governance disclosures, and are more likely to attract incremental bull market funds.
A hard fork can only fix the numbers on the ledger; the trust lost by investors is difficult to rebuild quickly through a single technical upgrade. To regain market recognition, the project team needs to release a complete security review report and publicly disclose abnormal token tracking data.
The CORE incident has established a brand-new public chain selection framework for all crypto participants: no longer blindly trusting whitepapers and hash power narratives, but prioritizing verification of code security, token release schedule, and project information transparency. The total supply cap is only a reference metric; these three hard indicators are the foundation of a public chain's long-term value. No matter how many bull market opportunities arise, risk control always comes first. $BTC On-chain Breaking News!
At 00:02 AM Beijing time on September 12, a whale address that made over ten million dollars by going long on Ethereum reversed to short Bitcoin.
Using 4x leverage, it shorted 640 BTC, with a position equivalent to 49.33 million USD. Monitoring data comes from the on-chain tracking agency Lookonchain.
Key point!
This address is no unknown rookie.
Before the last market rally started, it had already positioned long on Ethereum, pocketing over ten million dollars in real profit.
People who get on board before the breakout have a market rhythm sense far faster than those of us just refreshing the news.
So what is it doing now? Going short.
And the timing is very delicate: Bitcoin has dropped for four consecutive days, breaking below the $77,000 mark last night.
US inflation data keeps getting worse; the Producer Price Index exploded first, followed closely by the Consumer Price Index.
The market's expectations for Fed rate hikes keep rising.
More vividly, on the other side of the market, there’s a $70 million Bitcoin long position hanging, 911 coins, 40x leverage, liquidation price at 76,308.
Bitcoin’s lowest price yesterday early morning hit 76,651, just over $300 away from liquidation, hanging by a thread.
One veteran is shorting, one reckless player is holding on.
Honestly, after playing for so many years, what I fear most is not losing money, but treating "whale opening positions" as trading instructions. The overall market has V-shaped recovered, but don't mistake this kind of small coin "recovery" for a bottom.
#BTC现货ETF连续流出
BTC has bounced back to 78,000, and the US stock market rose over 1% to assist. Many people are starting to flip oversold small coins hoping to catch a rebound. Comparing BTC, BICO, and BEAT shows what "false recovery" really means.
BTC reflects the external environment. Although 78,000 is still lingering below the 78,500-79,000 trapped positions, the overall trend has warmed up, giving small coins a breathing window. Whether they can rise depends on their own fundamentals.
$BICO is around 2 cents, focusing on account abstraction, which basically means enabling gas-free and smoother on-chain operations. It's considered a must-have track in the Ethereum ecosystem, so the story is not bad. The problem is "a good track doesn't equal token price increase." With a small market cap and no capital support, when the market falls, it declines slowly; when the market rises, it barely stops falling. The story is far away, the price is lying on the floor. If you really want to position, only very small long-term stakes make sense. Don't expect it to rebound in sync with the market.
$BEAT is even more typical, now around 0.075. It once plunged 33% during the day, and after the market's V-shaped recovery, the drop narrowed to about 13%. It looks like a recovery, but looking at 7 days, it still fell 37%, with a market cap of only $25 million, down 99% from its all-time high, and volatility over 100%. This is not stabilization; it's a technical breather after a crash, a dead cat bounce. Liquidity is so thin that a few large orders can crash it again.
#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 #10年期美债逼近5%关口，回购难阻收益率上行 Choosing a public chain based only on the total supply cap? CORE taught the market a lesson with 69 million ghost tokens
⚠️This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice.
In the bull market, the BTCFi sector is heating up, and many retail investors screen public chains by first flipping through the whitepaper to check the maximum supply. $CORE attracted a large amount of capital with its narrative of a hard cap of 2.1 billion total supply and Bitcoin hashrate hybrid consensus. Many investors simply assume that as long as the total supply is fixed, token scarcity is guaranteed, and the project’s security is assured. Until the reward loophole exploded on 8.31, revealing 69 million ghost tokens, which brutally shattered this simplistic stock-picking logic.
The root cause of the incident was a code defect in the protocol’s reward distribution module, where a few malicious validator nodes exploited the loophole to claim block rewards repeatedly. In just a few days, 255 million CORE tokens were mined prematurely in one go; these tokens were originally planned to be slowly released to nodes over several decades. The project team repeatedly emphasized that the 2.1 billion total supply was not breached and no tokens were minted out of thin air. But many overlooked the key point: the total supply cap is only the ultimate ceiling; the token release schedule is the core factor determining selling pressure in the market.
This is a typical case of overspending issuance. The total number on the ledger did not change, but the chips that should have been gradually released over decades were prematurely released all at once, directly disrupting the original tokenomics. After the crisis broke out, the project urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, adopting a forward upgrade without rolling back transactions, so ordinary users’ holdings would not be wiped out. On-chain, 186 million abnormal tokens were burned, and the total supply on the books returned to 2.1 billion.
However, the hard fork had an irremediable flaw: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred out of the reward pool to external wallets before the fork upgrade was executed, making them unrecoverable through on-chain operations. This portion is the so-called ghost tokens in the market, unaffected by the burn, lingering long-term in circulation, always posing a risk of market dumping.
To this day, the core questions the community continues to ask remain unanswered publicly: How long did the loophole exist? The full list of involved validator nodes? The address distribution and transaction flow records of the 69 million ghost tokens? The project team only issued brief announcements and has yet to release a complete technical post-mortem report. This information black box is also the main reason institutional funds remain cautious and hesitate to enter the market on a large scale.
This incident also punctures another common misconception: hashrate endorsement does not equal comprehensive security. Bitcoin hashrate only guarantees the security of the underlying hash and defends against 51% hashrate attacks. Token reward distribution and node verification belong to upper-layer application code; no matter how strong the underlying hashrate is, if the upper-layer code has bugs, token release rules can spiral out of control.
Looking back at CORE’s roadmap, it plans LST liquidity staking, SatPay payments, and asset management protocols, aiming to create real business revenue through ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens, building a positive value flywheel. But in reality, the current ecosystem fee volume is very small, insufficient to offset the selling pressure caused by token release; price increases rely more on staking incentives than business profits.
After the loophole occurred, multiple exchanges immediately suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals. Although trading later resumed, on-chain staking earning functions were delisted, and the project’s risk rating was raised—this is the market’s most direct response.
Objectively, CORE’s code is open source, and the on-chain ledger is verifiable; it does not involve multi-level referral rebates and fundamentally differs from traditional Ponzi schemes. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no significant risk. Overspending issuance, leftover ghost tokens, insufficient information disclosure, and upper-layer code vulnerabilities are risks holders must face.
Similar projects in the same sector like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-level security incidents, and their audits and governance disclosures are more transparent. Incremental funds in the bull market are more willing to tilt toward such projects.
A hard fork can only fix the numbers on the ledger; the trust investors lost is hard to rebuild quickly through a single technical upgrade. To regain market recognition, the project team needs to release a complete security post-mortem report and publicly disclose abnormal token tracking data.
This incident sounds a warning bell for all retail investors laying out public chains: when selecting public chain projects, never focus solely on the total supply cap in the whitepaper. Token release schedule, code security, and project information transparency are all indispensable. Paper scarcity is easy to package, but hidden ghost tokens can destroy a market rally at any time. No matter how many bull market opportunities there are, principal safety always comes first. Why does Recent Roots appear simultaneously in ETH's privacy and censorship resistance paths?
In the Hegotá research, Recent Roots aims to allow privacy transactions to reference more recent on-chain states, while enabling mechanisms like FOCIL to verify them.
If privacy transactions rely on outdated states, it may increase failures and friction; if inclusion mechanisms cannot determine whether transactions meet basic validity, it becomes difficult to safely require block builders to include them.
Recent Roots attempts to bridge the two: allowing privacy proofs to use states closer to the current one, while providing necessary verification conditions for censorship resistance mechanisms.
This shows that protocol upgrades do not simply put privacy, security, and performance into three separate drawers. A single change can affect multiple paths simultaneously, and combined testing often appears more challenging than individual proposals.
For $ETH holders, this kind of design is not easily turned into a short-term price story, but it determines whether future privacy applications can truly rely on L1, rather than placing critical security assumptions off-chain.
What I appreciate about Ethereum is its willingness to address cross-functional issues. A truly reliable system not only requires each component to work individually but also demands that components do not interfere with each other once connected.Honestly, I'm staring at this 90% rate hike probability right now, and my mind is full of question marks.
Core CPI monthly rate is 0.3%, expected 0.2%, just 0.1 percentage points higher, guys. 0.1%! The overall data didn't explode or anything, yet the market went crazy, the rate hike probability shot up to 90%, US Treasury yields surged, gold and crypto all dropped, and $BTC was even smashed down near 77,000 at one point.
I just want to ask one thing——
Fed, do you really dare to hike?
It's not that I'm stubborn, but think about it, Waller just said in early September that if inflation continues to fall, he tends to keep rates unchanged in September, and even asked, "What's the cost of waiting for one more meeting?" Williams also said the reasons for a rate hike are insufficient. Waller has voting rights! Isn't his stance more reliable than the market's 90% bet?
And Trump is still shouting about giving everyone $5,000. Before the election, you tell me to keep tightening liquidity? I really don't believe it. Talking hawkish is fine, but actually doing it? I doubt it.
What's funniest? BTC was smashed to 77,000, but it didn't crash and was pushed back up. Shorts were forced to cover at a key support level, literally propping up the price. What does this mean? It means the bad news has already been priced in. What if on the actual rate decision day, they don't hike? Won't shorts become fuel?
So my current judgment is one word: no hike.
The 90% rate hike probability, in my view, is just an overheated emotional game. The Fed will most likely hold steady and leave the suspense for next time.
But that said, what do you think?
Do they really dare to hike? Or is it just hawkish talk to get through this?
Is BTC sitting at 77,000 waiting for direction, or has it already bottomed?
Trump's money giveaway plan, is it giving the Fed a reason not to hike, or is it forcing them to hike?
BTC at 77,000 may not be the end.
But this time, I'm on the "no hike" side.
What about you?
#BTC现货ETF连续流出 $ETH $ZEC Stop blindly trusting whitepapers! Three essential lessons the CORE incident teaches retail investors
⚠️This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice
In the bull market, the BTCFi sector's heat is soaring, and $CORE attracted countless retail investors to heavily invest by relying on the whitepaper's 2.1 billion total supply cap, Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus, and Bitcoin hashrate endorsement. Many people only looked at the whitepaper's promotion before buying, simply assuming that the written words guaranteed permanent security. It wasn't until the August 31 verification node reward vulnerability exploded that the biggest misconception in the crypto world was exposed: the whitepaper is just a marketing document, not a guarantee of asset safety. The CORE crisis has given all retail investors three invaluable risk lessons.
Lesson 1: Total supply cap ≠ chip security; beware of overspent issuance
The whitepaper's hard cap of 2.1 billion is CORE's core scarcity narrative. The project team repeatedly emphasized that this vulnerability did not mint tokens exceeding the 2.1 billion cap. But most retail investors overlooked a key point: the total supply cap is only the ultimate ceiling; the token release schedule is the core factor determining market supply and demand.
During the vulnerability period, a few malicious verification nodes repeatedly claimed block rewards, mining in bulk within a few days rewards that were originally scheduled to be slowly released over decades. The ledger numbers did not exceed the cap, but the chip supply rhythm went out of control, a typical overspent issuance. Subsequently, the project launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, destroying 186 million abnormal tokens, but about 69 million “ghost tokens” were transferred out of the reward pool before the fork and cannot be recovered, remaining long-term overhanging on the market.
Focusing only on the whitepaper's total supply without studying the release rules easily falls into the trap of apparent scarcity.
Lesson 2: Hashrate endorsement does not equal comprehensive security; separate bottom-layer and top-layer code
Many investors were brainwashed by the narrative of a "Bitcoin hashrate-protected public chain," mistakenly believing that as long as BTC hashrate is bound, the entire chain is unbreakable. This is the second major cognitive trap.
Bitcoin hashrate secures the bottom-layer hash, defending against 51% hashrate attacks; but token reward distribution and node verification logic belong to the top-layer application code. No matter how strong the bottom-layer hashrate is, if there is a bug in the top-layer code, the reward distribution mechanism will fail. The CORE incident clearly proves that hashrate can only protect the network, not the token economics. Evaluating public chain security cannot rely solely on the promoted consensus; contracts and reward modules must be audited separately.
Lesson 3: Project information transparency is the risk control indicator retail investors most easily overlook
Since the vulnerability occurred, the community has continuously asked about the vulnerability's latent period, the list of involved nodes, and the complete flow addresses of the 69 million ghost tokens. The project team only released brief announcements and has yet to provide a complete technical review report. This information black box is the key reason institutional funds are cautious and reluctant to enter.
Many projects write dazzling whitepapers in bull markets but avoid core issues and hide key data when facing crises. If a project dares not fully disclose information during major security incidents, no matter how grand the narrative, high vigilance is necessary. Realized ecological revenue, complete audit reports, and the degree of on-chain data transparency are far more important than beautiful promotional copy.
CORE's roadmap plans products like LST liquid staking and SatPay payments, aiming to generate real revenue through ecological fees, but the current ecosystem scale is very small. Market price increases rely more on staking incentives than business profits. After the incident, exchanges delisted the on-chain earning function and raised risk ratings, reflecting the market's real feedback.
Objectively, CORE's code is open source and the on-chain ledger is verifiable, so it is not a traditional Ponzi scheme. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no huge risk. Overspent issuance, leftover ghost chips, and insufficient information disclosure are all real hidden dangers. Other projects in the same sector like STX and MERL have no major security incidents and transparent governance, making them more attractive to incremental bull market funds.
The hard fork only fixed the ledger numbers; shattered market trust is hard to rebuild quickly. To regain market confidence, the project team must publicly release a complete review report and disclose the tracking status of abnormal tokens.
These three lessons are worth remembering for all crypto participants: investment cannot rely solely on whitepapers; total supply, security, and transparency are all indispensable. Paper narratives can be easily packaged, but code vulnerabilities and chip sell pressure will not disappear because of a good story. There are many opportunities in a bull market, but protecting principal always comes first. Single Coin Contract Fluctuation
There is a fluctuation on the $SNDK contract side; first, distinguish whether it is a new position advancing or an old position retreating.
15m price -0.03%, open interest -0.12%, neither change is sufficient to confirm a new direction. Market order buyer ratio is 20.6%; at least one of price or open interest has not shown a clear signal, so hold off on judgment for now. All 10 major coins rebound across the board, but BTC and ETH are reducing positions
The fixed 10-coin sample shifted from all falling in the previous hour to all rising, with total spot trading volume dropping to 26,185,200 USDT, only 36.29% of the previous hour. BTC closed up 0.30%, ETH only up 0.08%, price recovery lacks trading volume support.
In the same hour, BTC contract open interest decreased by 0.99% to 2.82 billion USD, ETH decreased by 3.28% to 1.825 billion USD. If in the next 1H BTC closes above 77,375, ETH closes above 2,548.47, and most of the sample coins rise with trading volume simultaneously increasing, the recovery is confirmed; if BTC closes below 76,880.1 and most coins turn down, the rebound fails.
Which subsequent data would make you judge this position reduction rebound as an effective recovery? Full Review of the CORE Vulnerability Incident: How Did Overdraft Issuance Break Through BTCFi's Trust Bottom Line?
⚠️ This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice.
During the bull market, the BTCFi sector surged, and $CORE quickly became a star in the field thanks to its Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus, Bitcoin hash power backing, and the scarcity narrative of a 2.1 billion total supply cap. Countless investors believed that with Bitcoin hash power as a backstop and a permanently locked total supply, the tokenomics of this public chain were sufficiently secure. However, the validator reward vulnerability that broke out on August 31 exposed a huge trust fissure behind the BTCFi narrative, prompting the entire sector to reassess its security boundaries.
The incident occurred between August 28 and 31, when a code defect existed in the protocol's reward distribution module. A few malicious validator nodes exploited the vulnerability to repeatedly claim block rewards. Within just three days, a total of 255 million CORE tokens were prematurely withdrawn at once. These tokens were originally planned to be gradually distributed as node rewards over an 81-year release schedule. The project team repeatedly emphasized that this incident did not breach the 2.1 billion total supply cap and did not mint new tokens out of thin air. But the fundamental problem is that the total supply cap is only a long-term ceiling; the token release pace was completely out of control, representing a typical case of overdraft issuance.
After the incident broke out, the project team urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, adopting a forward upgrade approach without rolling back historical transactions. Ordinary users’ holdings and staked assets were not reset to zero. The hard fork directly destroyed and reclaimed 186 million abnormal tokens on-chain, restoring the total supply on the ledger to 2.1 billion. However, the hard fork has an irreplaceable shortcoming: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred out of the reward pool to external wallet addresses before the fork execution. These "ghost tokens" cannot be recovered through on-chain upgrades and may be dumped on the secondary market at any time, becoming a long-term overhang selling pressure.
At the moment the crisis broke out, multiple exchanges immediately suspended CORE network deposits and withdrawals to prevent abnormal tokens from impacting the market. Although trading later resumed, many platforms delisted CORE’s on-chain yield staking products and raised the project’s risk rating, which is the most direct risk warning from institutional investors.
This incident shattered a widely held misconception in the crypto community: hash power endorsement does not equal absolute security. Bitcoin hash power only protects the underlying hash layer against 51% attacks; token reward distribution logic and node governance rules belong to upper-layer application code. No matter how strong the underlying hash power is, if there is a vulnerability in the upper-layer code, the token release rules will fail. CORE’s core selling point is BTC hash power hybrid consensus, and this vulnerability incident directly struck at its most fundamental narrative.
To this day, several key questions persist in the community without full disclosure: How long was the vulnerability latent? The complete list of involved validator nodes? The address distribution and transaction trajectory of the 69 million ghost tokens? The project team has only issued brief announcements and has yet to release a comprehensive technical postmortem report. Lack of transparency is the core reason institutional funds remain cautious and reluctant to enter on a large scale.
Looking back at CORE’s roadmap, the project plans to deploy LST liquidity staking, SatPay payments, and asset management protocols, aiming to generate real business revenue from ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens, creating a positive value flywheel. But the reality is harsh: current ecosystem fee volume is very small and insufficient to offset selling pressure from token releases. Price increases rely more on staking incentives than real business profits.
Objectively, CORE’s code is open source and the on-chain ledger is verifiable, with no multi-level referral rebate schemes, fundamentally different from traditional Ponzi schemes. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no significant investment risk. Overdraft issuance, leftover ghost tokens, insufficient information disclosure, and upper-layer code vulnerability risks are all risks holders must face.
The BTCFi sector’s heat has not completely faded; competitors like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-level security incidents, and their governance and audit disclosures are more transparent. Incremental bull market funds clearly tilt toward these kinds of projects.
The hard fork only fixed the numbers on the ledger, but the trust investors lost is hard to rebuild quickly with a single technical upgrade. To regain market recognition, the project team must release a complete security postmortem, comprehensive audit reports, and publicly track abnormal tokens on-chain.
The CORE incident delivered a heavy lesson to all retail investors involved in BTCFi. Evaluating a public chain cannot rely solely on faith in hash power backing and whitepaper total supply caps. Token release pace, code security, and project information transparency are all indispensable. Scarcity on paper is easy to create, but once issuance is overdrafted, no matter how brilliant the narrative, it will quickly collapse.The ledger hasn't exceeded 2.1 billion, but the tokens have already been released early: CORE's "paper scarcity" scam
⚠️ This article is based on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute any investment advice
During the bull market when the BTCFi sector was booming, the most attractive selling point of $CORE was its hard cap of 2.1 billion tokens, modeled after Bitcoin. Countless retail investors were moved by this scarcity narrative, believing that the fixed total supply, backed by Bitcoin's hashrate, naturally endowed the token with long-term value retention. On 8.31, a validator reward vulnerability was exposed, revealing the harsh truth: the ledger numbers did not exceed 2.1 billion, but the token release pace had already spiraled out of control. The so-called scarcity was merely an illusion on paper.
CORE's original token release plan was a slow, linear distribution of validator rewards over 81 years, simulating Bitcoin's halving logic, gradually flowing into the market. However, a fatal bug in the protocol's reward calculation logic allowed a few malicious validators to exploit the loophole, repeatedly claiming block rewards and mining tokens that should have been released gradually over decades in just a few days.
The project team repeatedly emphasized that this incident did not exceed the 2.1 billion total supply cap and no new tokens were minted out of thin air. This statement is not wrong but deliberately avoids the core issue: the total supply cap is only the ultimate ceiling, not a safety lock on circulating tokens. Tokens that were supposed to be released slowly over decades were overdrafted at once, directly breaking the market's supply-demand balance. This is a typical case of paper scarcity.
After the crisis emerged, the project urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, adopting a forward upgrade approach without rolling back historical transactions, so ordinary users' assets would not be wiped out. The protocol destroyed 186 million abnormal tokens, restoring the ledger total to 2.1 billion. However, the hard fork has an irreplaceable shortcoming: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred to external wallet addresses before the fork upgrade and cannot be recovered through on-chain upgrades. These "ghost tokens" are unaffected by the destruction and could flow into the secondary market at any time, posing selling pressure over all holders.
To this day, the community's key questions remain unanswered. How long did the vulnerability lurk? The full list of involved validator nodes? The address distribution and transaction trails of the 69 million ghost tokens? The project team has only issued brief announcements and has yet to release a complete technical postmortem report. This information blackout is the core reason institutional funds remain cautious and hesitant to enter aggressively.
Many retail investors have a huge misconception: with BTC hashrate backing, the entire public chain is foolproof. The truth is, Bitcoin's hashrate only secures the underlying hash layer against 51% attacks; reward distribution and node governance belong to upper-layer application code. No matter how strong the underlying hashrate is, if the upper-layer code has bugs, the token release rules can fail. Hashrate backing does not equal absolute security of the token release mechanism.
The CORE roadmap paints a beautiful ecological blueprint: LST liquid staking, SatPay payments, asset management protocols, aiming to generate real business revenue from ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens, building a positive value flywheel. But reality is harsh; current ecosystem fees are very small and insufficient to offset selling pressure from token releases. Price increases rely more on staking incentives than business profits.
After the vulnerability was exposed, multiple exchanges immediately suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals. Although trading resumed later, on-chain staking earning functions were delisted and the project's risk rating was raised, reflecting the market's most direct attitude.
Objectively, CORE's code is open source and the on-chain ledger is verifiable, with no multi-level referral rebates, fundamentally different from traditional Ponzi schemes. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no huge risk. Overdraft releases, leftover ghost tokens, insufficient information disclosure, and code vulnerability risks are all risks holders must seriously consider.
Other projects in the same sector like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-layer security incidents, with more transparent governance and audit disclosures. Bull market incremental funds prefer to tilt toward such projects.
The hard fork only fixed the ledger numbers. Broken market trust is hard to rebuild with a single technical upgrade. To regain investor trust, the project team needs to fully release a security postmortem, comprehensive audit reports, and public token flow data.
This incident sounds a warning bell for all crypto participants: when choosing public chain projects, don't just focus on the total supply cap in the whitepaper. Token release pace, code security, and project information transparency are all indispensable. Paper scarcity is easy to achieve; rebuilding consensus in investors' minds is the hardest challenge.Hashrate endorsement ≠ absolute security! The CORE incident is a slap in the face for all retail investors
⚠️ This article is based on publicly available on-chain information for review purposes only and does not constitute any investment advice
During the bull market when the BTCFi sector was booming, the most attractive promotion of $CORE was its Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus. Relying on Bitcoin's powerful hashrate as a security foundation and a hard cap of 2.1 billion total supply, countless retail investors were convinced by this narrative, forming a deeply rooted belief: with BTC hashrate as a backstop, this public chain is almost immune to failure.
The reward vulnerability outbreak on August 31 shattered this illusion directly, delivering a harsh lesson to the market: Bitcoin's hashrate can only protect the hash layer; upper-layer contracts, reward distribution logic, and node governance code can still have fatal vulnerabilities. Hashrate endorsement does not equal absolute security.
The cause of the incident was a flaw in the protocol's reward calculation logic, which a few malicious validator nodes exploited to repeatedly claim block rewards. The project team repeatedly emphasized that this incident did not exceed the 2.1 billion maximum supply and did not mint tokens out of thin air. But essentially, it prematurely mined a large amount of block rewards that were supposed to be released in batches over the next several decades within just a few days, a typical case of overspending issuance. The whitepaper's total supply cap number remained unchanged, but the token release schedule was completely out of control.
After the crisis emerged, the project urgently launched the v1.0.26 hard fork, adopting a forward upgrade without rolling back historical transactions, so ordinary users' assets were not directly lost. At the protocol level, 186 million abnormal tokens were destroyed, and the ledger's total supply returned to 2.1 billion. However, the hard fork has an irreplaceable shortcoming: about 69 million abnormal tokens had already been transferred to external wallet addresses before the fork upgrade and cannot be recovered through on-chain upgrades. These are the so-called "ghost tokens" hanging over the market, posing potential selling pressure at any time.
Until now, the community's key questions remain incompletely disclosed: how long the vulnerability existed, the full list of involved validator nodes, and the complete flow path of the 69 million tokens. The project team has only provided brief explanations without releasing a full technical review report. This information black box is the core reason institutional funds are cautious and reluctant to enter aggressively.
Many retail investors confuse two layers of security logic: Bitcoin's hashrate is responsible for network hash security and defending against 51% hashrate attacks; token reward distribution, node permissions, and smart contracts belong to the application layer code. Even if the underlying hashrate is very strong, if the upper-layer code has bugs, there is still a major risk of uncontrolled token issuance. The core lesson of the CORE incident is not to equate underlying hashrate security with the entire public chain being invulnerable.
CORE's roadmap depicts a promising ecosystem blueprint: LST liquid staking, SatPay payments, asset management protocols, aiming to generate real business revenue from ecosystem fees and use profits to buy back tokens, building a positive value flywheel. But reality is harsh; the current ecosystem fee volume is very small and insufficient to offset the selling pressure caused by token releases. Price increases rely more on staking incentives than business profits.
After the vulnerability outbreak, multiple exchanges immediately suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals. Although trading resumed later, the on-chain staking-to-earn function was delisted, and the project's risk rating was raised. This is the market's most direct attitude.
Objectively, CORE's code is open source, and the on-chain ledger is verifiable. It does not involve multi-level referral rebates and is fundamentally different from traditional Ponzi schemes. But not being a Ponzi scheme does not mean there is no significant risk. Residual ghost tokens, insufficient information disclosure, and code vulnerability risks are all risks holders must take seriously.
Other projects in the same sector like STX and MERL have not experienced major consensus-level security incidents; their governance and audit disclosures are more transparent, and incremental funds in the bull market are more willing to tilt toward such projects.
The hard fork only fixed the numbers on the ledger. Broken market trust is hard to rebuild with a single technical upgrade. To regain investor trust, the project team needs to fully release a security review, comprehensive audit reports, and public token flow data.
This incident sounds a warning bell for all crypto participants: when choosing public chain projects, do not blindly trust hashrate endorsement and whitepaper total supply caps. Code security, token release schedules, and project information transparency are all indispensable. Paper scarcity is easy to achieve; rebuilding consensus in investors' minds is the hardest challenge.9.12 Morning Quick Report📝
BTC is currently hovering around 77,200. After Friday's CPI data release, $BTC first dipped to 76,000, then surged to touch 79,800, and finally closed at 77,700. The market lacked volume over the weekend, and the price gains were given back. $ETH moved around 2,460 with no independent trend.
August US CPI broadly met expectations, but core CPI monthly rate of 0.3% exceeded the expected 0.2%, with a year-on-year rate of 2.4%, the lowest since 2021. Market views are divided: overall inflation is easing, but core inflation remains stubborn.
The probability of a 25 basis point rate hike at the September FOMC is fluctuating. The market's focus is no longer on whether there will be a hike, but on whether there will be further hikes afterward. The 10-year US Treasury yield retreated after approaching 5%, and US stocks rebounded, with the Dow Jones surging 600 points, representing short-covering after bad news was priced in.
Externally, US Treasury repo amounts were not fully utilized; Saudi Arabia's crude oil production hit a multi-year low, and geopolitical risks in the Red Sea persist. Gold oscillated around 4,400, oil prices slightly retreated, and supply-side logic remains.
In the crypto space, BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $330 million on Friday, with institutions reducing positions to hedge during the rebound. The dip to 76,000 triggered many stop losses, and the high of 79,800 could not hold. Weekend liquidity was poor, and the market is currently range-bound; do not mistake this for a trend. The technical indicator golden cross is still brewing, but rate hike expectations are suppressing market risk appetite.
#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 The US opens a regulatory channel for stock perpetuals, but $LIT falls back to 4.36: Avoid chasing highs before the macro week
Three hours ago, the US paved a regulated channel for stock perpetuals, yet $LIT dropped from 4.901 to 4.36, down 6.0%. I am bullish but only buying on dips.
The transmission is straightforward — stock perpetuals enter the licensed market, compliance base absorbs incremental volume. INJ had $4.5 billion in equity last year, with institutional departments registered as SEC transfer agents. Funds did not follow; half an hour before and after the event, LIT only moved from 4.462 to 4.471.
The overall environment is also cold — BTC at 77114.61 sideways (-0.064%), 32 up 37 down, fear and greed at 56. The narrative fails to turn into buying pressure.
After the event, LIT fell from 4.471 to 4.36; fortunately, the daily RSI entered oversold territory, 4h SAR at 4.2944 below, and the rate -0.000298 close to zero.
Resistance above: 4.8703 (1h SAR) → 4.901 (24h high)
Support below: 4.2944 (4h SAR) → 4.282 (24h low)
Watershed: 4.282, exit if broken.
Conclusion: With the FOMC and SEP on September 15, and CPI the same day, the macro week is unlikely to be one-sided; only discuss pricing after volume breaks above 4.8703.
Set low buy at 4.2944, cut losses if below 4.282, take half profits on rebound to 4.87.
This account only speaks plainly, follow = save time.
$LIT $BTCSeeing the market weakening, I took another position, shorting $BZ at 50x leverage with a floating profit of one hundred. 102.77 is the upper edge of the descending channel to test the short.
When it dropped to 100.71, volume started to decline; if the rebound fails to break resistance, continue holding. High leverage only for certainty.
Don’t be greedy or itchy-handed, secure the principal firmly; reduce position and exit if the market weakens. $BTC $ETH #美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 The current $ETH is indeed different from before. Previously, whenever it dropped, it was criticized for being expensive, slow, and centralized—like a perennial underdog altcoin.
Now institutional funds keep buying through ETFs and listed companies, and many ETH are locked up as staking collateral, reducing the circulating supply in the market. So the market is much more stable, and the pullbacks aren't as severe.
$ETH /$BTC has been gradually rising over the past few months, showing signs of outperforming Bitcoin. This isn't short-term sentiment; the structure has changed. After technical upgrades, transfers are cheaper and more efficient. However, the debate over "centralization" hasn't disappeared; it has just shifted from mining pools to staking service providers. In short, ETH has changed, but the community still argues as usual. #美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 $RKLB
Rocket Lab has submitted an objection to the GAO regarding the previous Mars network contract.
I support Rocket Lab's objection, but I am not optimistic that Rocket Lab will get its way.
The reason for my support is that, as the subcontractor, being able to raise objections equally to the prime contractor, even going to court, is an important reason why the U.S. commercial space industry can develop. This is also why I believe regions outside the U.S. will face much greater difficulties in this regard compared to the U.S.
Because the establishment of this "precedent" in the U.S. commercial space industry also involved some chance factors. If the Obama administration had not pushed for commercial space, if Elon Musk had not stubbornly gone to court against the military, if NASA had not internally supported small businesses back then, it would have been difficult for the U.S. to establish the current industry consensus.
Of course, supporting the objection does not mean I think Rocket Lab can reclaim or obtain another contract of the same kind. Under the requirements of this contract, even though Blue Origin is still rebuilding its launch capabilities, Rocket Lab will find it difficult to form comprehensive competitiveness.To be honest, when the core CPI month-on-month figure of 0.3% came out, my first reaction was "Oh no, it's going to drop again."
But after thinking carefully, it doesn't seem that simple.
The core CPI year-on-year at 2.4% is clearly slowing down, which should be a good thing, right? But the month-on-month 0.3% exceeded expectations, and the market immediately panicked. I was wondering, it's just one month's data, can it really indicate that inflation is picking up again? Or is it just noise and everyone is overreacting?
Then the more I think about it, the more I feel there's a point worth debating—does the Federal Reserve look at year-on-year or month-on-month? If they look at year-on-year, 2.4% is actually okay, no need to be so hawkish. But if they see month-on-month acceleration, then caution is warranted. The problem is the market is currently trading entirely on the logic of "month-on-month acceleration means tightening must continue." Is this logic really sound? I have some doubts.
Also, about $BTC, the 77,000 level is really critical. What I'm most curious about now is, if yields and the dollar are both rising, and BTC can still hold 77,000, what does that mean? Has the market already priced in the rate hikes, or is there a group of people blindly buying without regard to macro factors?
Conversely, if 77,000 breaks, where is the next support? 72,000? Or straight down to the 60,000s? Thinking about it makes me a bit uneasy.
So is this CPI round proof that "the last mile of inflation is hard to walk," or is it the old script of "the market overreacting to single-month data again"? If it's the former, BTC indeed faces short-term pressure. If it's the latter, then this might just be a pit created by panic selling.
What do you all think?
#美国CPI环比加速，加息预期升温 $ETH